Quote:
Me and the wife caught it yesterday. I agree with you whole-heartedly. It was a FUN movie. It's not going to win any awards, but then again I don't think that's what they were shooting for. Was it worth $6 (caught it at a matinee, just made it, show started at 5:55p and the cutoff was 6p) HELL YES! Would I recommend it to others? Well not to my 70 year old mother-in-law no, but to my 25 and 27 year old nephews, again, HELL YES! |
Originally Posted by DocPhotonic
I just got back from seeing the grindhouse exploitation movie Drive Angry 3D. Is it a bad movie? Yep. Did it entertain the everlovin' hell out of me? Oh, you better believe it!
This is the movie that Tarantino's Deathproof should have been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2-hiHUh4UQ |
We thought about going to see the 3D version but my wife and I both wear glasses and thought that it might be a problem fitting the 3D glasses over our prescription glasses. But that got me to thinking, WHAT is the purpose of watching a movie in 3D? While I was watching the move I saw a lot of stuff that seemed to be flying towards the screen. Is that the attraction? Seeing stuff and feeling like it's coming at you? Do the people, cars, etc seem to be in 3D as well?
Just asking, never been to a 3D movie, and just wondered what it was like.
3D is just a fad.
Quote:
My eyes hope it is...
|
Originally Posted by Xzero45
3D is just a fad.
|
Quote:
The 3D glasses are big and should fit over your glasses. The 3D effects don't really add a lot, but the added depth and occasional neat effect looks cool. I find 3D works better in animated movies than live action. I haven't seen Drive Angry, so I can't comment on that.
|
Originally Posted by SkyRocker
We thought about going to see the 3D version but my wife and I both wear glasses and thought that it might be a problem fitting the 3D glasses over our prescription glasses. But that got me to thinking, WHAT is the purpose of watching a movie in 3D? While I was watching the move I saw a lot of stuff that seemed to be flying towards the screen. Is that the attraction? Seeing stuff and feeling like it's coming at you? Do the people, cars, etc seem to be in 3D as well?
Just asking, never been to a 3D movie, and just wondered what it was like. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vox Populi
The 3D glasses are big and should fit over your glasses. The 3D effects don't really add a lot, but the added depth and occasional neat effect looks cool. I find 3D works better in animated movies than live action. I haven't seen Drive Angry, so I can't comment on that.
|
They do, but 3d glasses + normal glasses makes up for quite a bit of weight on my little nose. I kinda wish there were some clip-on 3d lenses i could use on my regular glasses. Much like the clipon sunglasses that were popular in the 80's.
Quote:
The one 3D movie I've seen (Green Hornet), the glasses weren't so much heavy as they were awkward and ill-fitting. I noticed how they fit on my ears more than the weight on the nose. And ya, that's over regular glasses as well. If I have the option, I won't be seeing any more 3D movies as that additional $2.50 is really not worth it.
|
Originally Posted by Sapphic_Neko
They do, but 3d glasses + normal glasses makes up for quite a bit of weight on my little nose. I kinda wish there were some clip-on 3d lenses i could use on my regular glasses. Much like the clipon sunglasses that were popular in the 80's.
|
Brad Jones (aka The Cinema Snob) gives an interesting take on the use and misuse of 3D in modern movies in his review of Drive Angry. He argues that there are two ways in which 3D is used: atmospheric 3D and gimmicky 3D.
Atmospheric 3D merely serves to give the illusion of depth between the background and the characters on screen. Examples include Avatar, The Green Hornet, and The Last Airbender. In many of these movies, the 3D effect is added in post-production, seemingly as an afterthought. Brad argues that atmospheric 3D is a waste of the effect, being either pretentious in the case of James Cameron's movies--or just a way to ripoff moviegoers with higher ticket prices.
Gimmicky 3D, Brad argues on the other hand, is the proper use of 3D. Gimmicky 3D doesn't just give the illusion of depth, it gives the illusion that objects (e.g., bullets, knives, blood, etc.) are leaping off the movie screen and right at the audience's faces, adding to the fun of the movie experience. Examples of this include Drive Angry 3D, My Bloody Valentine, and Piranha 3D.
Here is Brad Jones' review: http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/02/26/...-d-review.aspx
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DocPhotonic
Brad Jones (aka The Cinema Snob) gives an interesting take on the use and misuse of 3D in modern movies in his review of Drive Angry. He argues that there are two ways in which 3D is used: atmospheric 3D and gimmicky 3D.
Atmospheric 3D merely serves to give the illusion of depth between the background and the characters on screen. Examples include Avatar, The Green Hornet, and The Last Airbender. In many of these movies, the 3D effect is added in post-production, seemingly as an afterthought. Brad argues that atmospheric 3D is a waste of the effect, being either pretentious in the case of James Cameron's movies--or just a way to ripoff moviegoers with higher ticket prices. Gimmicky 3D, Brad argues on the other hand, is the proper use of 3D. Gimmicky 3D doesn't just give the illusion of depth, it gives the illusion that objects (e.g., bullets, knives, blood, etc.) are leaping off the movie screen and right at the audience's faces, adding to the fun of the movie experience. Examples of this include Drive Angry 3D, My Bloody Valentine, and Piranha 3D. Here is Brad Jones' review: http://thecinemasnob.com/2011/02/26/...-d-review.aspx |
Hmm...can't say I exactly agree with that assessment. Avatar was atmospheric (mostly...some stuff did pop at ya) but didn't come off as pretentious in the film itself. The hype, maybe, but that's marketing for ya. I saw it both 3D and at home, and the 3d definitely was missed at home. The use of the effect was such that it almost felt as if you were in the scenes, not just a diorama-type effect like post production often ends up with. I think it's a bit unfair to lump it in with those other 2, as Avatar (like Drive Angry) was shot in 3d.
Furio--Lvl 50+3 Fire/Fire/Fire Blaster, Virtue
Megadeth--Lvl 50+3 Necro/DM/Soul MM, Virtue
Veriandros--Lvl 50+3 Crab Soldier, Virtue
"So come and get me! I'll be waiting for ye, with a whiff of the old brimstone. I'm a grim bloody fable, with an unhappy bloody end!" Demoman, TF2
I enjoyed it for what it was. I was entertained and didn't want my money back afterwards.
The 3D was good in some spots and 'C'mon, really?' in a few others. Bullets flying towards the audience is something that irritates me for some reason, like the glasses on my face didn't make me realize that I'm watching something in the 3D.
Out of the 3D movies I've seen so far, Avatar was the one that did it best, because it wasn't waved in front of my face everytime something happened.
Infinity
Sam Varden 50 MA/Reg Scrap
Doomtastic 50 SS/Inv Brute
Ceus 50 Eng/Kin Corr
Cinderstorm 50 Fire/Fire Blaster
I just got back from seeing the grindhouse exploitation movie Drive Angry 3D. Is it a bad movie? Yep. Did it entertain the everlovin' hell out of me? Oh, you better believe it!
This is the movie that Tarantino's Deathproof should have been. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2-hiHUh4UQ